1 / 17

Sharing a bibliographic database in research teams on web interface A study of collaborative reference management tools

Sharing a bibliographic database in research teams on web interface A study of collaborative reference management tools Colette Cadiou, Sylvie Sarah-Blin colette.cadiou@cemagref.fr , docmtd@teledetection.fr. EURASLIC , OMER May 2011, Lyon, France. Plan . Context

duaa
Download Presentation

Sharing a bibliographic database in research teams on web interface A study of collaborative reference management tools

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Sharing a bibliographic database in research teams on web interface A study of collaborative reference management tools Colette Cadiou, Sylvie Sarah-Blin colette.cadiou@cemagref.fr, docmtd@teledetection.fr EURASLIC , OMER May 2011, Lyon, France

  2. Plan Context Reference management practices and needs Study of different tools Conclusion and further opportunities

  3. Context of our studyResearch and scientific information in Cemagref • Cemagref : the French governmental environmental science and technology institute, 800 scientists, doctorate and post-doctorate students in 9 centres • Researchers work • in a team or laboratory, • in research national or international project teams • in specialized fields from different disciplines : biology, hydrology, forestry, economics and management, electronics, modelling…

  4. Context of our studyA professional network for scientific information • A network of 25 librariansor information specialists to answer scientific information needs to researchers : • information watching and searching, • bibliometrics, • electronic and paper resources management, • web communication • OAI publications • Support to prospective or strategy • training and support : information retrieval, reference software management

  5. How researchers manage their documents with software PDF documents on internal server URL Links or web page capture  Word processor integrationStyles for citations/journals Scientific publication Word, OpenOffice, LateX Researcher’s reference database Results of database searching (Scopus, WOS, IEEE XPlore, Google Scholar…) Other tool

  6. How researchers would like to share their bibliography Web access common library • User demand • Common keywords or fields, name of contributor, comments add, alerts… • Storage in secure computing environment • Free or open source system PDF documents on server RIS or BibteX +files import/export Word processor integrationStyles for citations/journals  Scientific publication Word, OpenOffice, LateX Researchers’ biblio databases with their PDF, web captures…

  7. Sharing bibliography : current or past practices in Cemagref Sharing EndNote files in one common EndNote Database  secure storage, customization, import quality no web access, limited to EndNote users, writing rights limited, no group management, success depends on one coordinator Wikindx (free open source,http://wikindx.sourceforge.net/) secure storage oninternal server  no success with researchers (coordination, ergonomy), no longer developed

  8. New demands in 2010 for collaboration

  9. Methodology of our study Evolution of the context(Literature, blogs forums…) Elaboration of a list of criteria List of software to test Tests of different tools Conclusion and prospects

  10. Results of our tests in 2010

  11. Results of our tests in 2010

  12. Other tools tested or examined • Reference management software Pybliographer, Qiqqa, Refbase, I’Librarian, Aigaion, Jumper: don’t match with our criteria, pbs in tests • Library Open source software (PMB, Koha): no imports, not adapted • CMS ( Content management systems ) : bibliography module • ex Drupal : imports/exports RIS and BibteX ok, but requires further developments for ergonomy

  13. Conclusion • 2 products offer the best possibilities but don’t achieve the ideal solution • Mendeley : Very ergonomic and easy tool for personal and web use ( desktop and/or web), sharing documents with max 10 persons, annotating and searching documents, social network facilities , Zotero but economic problem if more than 10 persons, more than 500 Mo etc • CiteULike : Solid application, no storage limit but interface could be improved /Mendeley, external server, a few advertisements , customization limited

  14. Further opportunities «Cloud computing » = centrally-hosted website tools seem inevitable : who will pay if required, how long will it be free ? What Else ? new products are coming with new opportunities : to be tested Colwiz, http://www.colwiz.com ( end of 2010) : not limited to papers : « research management, collaboration and productivity in one place for free ») Evolution of current tools : Zotero, better synchronization , subcollection to export ? Will collaborative tools ( Alfresco, Nuxeo ) include reference management ? Social scientific networks ( researchgate ?) How to export several PDF documents and metadata Adaptation , impact on our activities (import/export quality, training and support, database size, new literature searching tools? Cooperation between librarians/computing engineers to test and share our test results and experience : professional associations or networks : how to organize it ?

  15. Acknowledgements Comparison of reference management software - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_reference_management_software Plateforme de gestion bibliographique - SciencesPo. Wikihttp://wiki.sciences-po.fr/mediawiki/index.php/Plateforme_de_gestion_bibliographique (2011) Reference Manager Overview | Gobbledygook http://blogs.plos.org/mfenner/reference-manager-overview/ and Reference management meets Web 2.0 , Martin Fenner, Cellular Therapy and Transplantation, Vol. 2, No. 6, 2010 10.3205/ctt-2010-en-000087.01, http://ctt-journal.com/index.php?id=582&uid=314&code=DNL&backPID=582&no_cache=1&rtekeep=1 Hull D, Pettifer SR, Kell DB (2008) Defrosting the Digital Library: Bibliographic Tools for the Next Generation Web. PLoS Comput Biol 4(10): e1000204. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000204http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1000204 Mead TL, Berryman DR (2010) Reference and PDF-manager software: complexities, support and workflow . Med Ref Serv Q 2010 Oct; 29(4):388-93. Norman, F. ( 2010) Trading knowledge: From Sci-Mate to Mendeley - a brief history of reference managershttp://blogs.nature.com/franknorman/2010/06/ Mémoriser/Favoris et signets - Wiki URFIST http://wiki-urfist.unice.fr/wiki_urfist/index.php/M%C3%A9moriser/Favoris_et_signets Lardy, JP. (2010) CiteUlike, Connotea, BibSonomy et 2Collab http://urfist.univ-lyon1.fr/1276867570613/0/fiche___document/&RH=1228138239015 Marois, A. ( 2010)Mendeley : gestion de références bibliographiques 2.0 http://www.slideshare.net/amarois/mendeley-gestion-de-rfrences-bibliographique-20

More Related